New World Order: An Eschatology of Dominion

Glenn Peoples




Introduction

Ever since the rise of contemporary evangelicalism in the 20th century, a widespread belief has abounded that the world is doomed to become more and more godless and wicked as world history progresses. J.S. Malan paints a vivid picture of a premillennial vision of the future on earth:

The scene is rapidly prepared for the coming of the Antichrist. We already experience the falling away of the end of the church dispensation, and the beginning of sorrows. Soon, the hour of the departure of the children of God will come when they will be removed to heavenly places in the twinkling of an eye. Those who withheld the appearance of the Antichrist will then be taken out of way, thereby causing great spiritual darkness on earth. Under the leadership of the man of sin, who will be Satan's ruler over an utterly depraved and deceived humanity, lawlessness and immorality will take on unprecedented proportions. As in the time of Noah and Lot, The Lord will visit this rebellious generation with great plagues and judgements during the day of the Lord.1

There have been those, of course, who have not been quite so given to specific speculation as this, and who have held respectable places in the history of evangelicalism who express equally bleak images of the future of this world. J.N. Darby serves as a perfect example:

What we are about to consider will tend to shew that, instead of permitting ourselves to hope for a continued progress of good, we must expect a progress of evil; and that the hope of the earth being filled with the knowledge of the Lord before the exercise of His judgment on the earth, is delusive.

We are to expect evil, until it becomes so flagrant that it will be necessary for the Lord to judge it.2

The practical implications of this, once realised, are obvious and serious. Long-time president of Dallas Theological College John Walvoord expressed his view on the implications of his own view with regard to the gloomy future of the world when interviewed by Christianity Today's Kenneth Kantzer:

Kantzer: For all of you who are not postmils, is it worth your efforts to improve the physical, social, and political situation on earth?

Walvoord: The answer is yes and no. We know that our efforts to make society Christianized is [sic] futile because the Bible doesn't teach it. On the other hand, the Bible certainly doesn't teach that we should be indifferent to injustice and famine and to all sorts of things that are wrong in our current civilization. Even though we know our efforts aren't going to bring a utopia, we should do what we can to have honest government and moral laws. It's very difficult from Scripture to advocate massive social improvement efforts, because certainly Paul didn't start any, and neither did Peter. They assumed that civilization as a whole is hopeless and subject to God's judgment.3

Reflecting on the impact this has had on Christian thinking, David Chilton says,
Any new outbreak of war, any rise in crime statistics, any new evidence of the breakdown of the family, was often oddly viewed as progress, a step forward toward the expected goal of the total collapse of civilization, a sign that Jesus might come to rescue us at any moment. Social action projects were looked on with skepticism: it was often assumed that anyone who actually tried to improve the world must not really believe the Bible, because the Bible taught that such efforts were bound to be futile; as one famous preacher put it, "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship." That slogan was based on two assumptions: first, that the world is nothing more than a "sinking ship"; second, that any organized program of Christian reconstruction would be nothing more than "polishing brass." Evangelism was an invitation to join the losing side.4

There are those, however, who have not shared this gloomy outlook and who instead have believed that the world will be transformed by the Gospel before Christ returns. They have charged people like Walvoord with "the false doctrine which teaches that we are doomed to failure, that Christians cannot win - the notion that, until Jesus returns, Christians will steadily lose ground to the enemy."5 I will argue here that among such optimists could be listed the biblical writers and Jesus Christ Himself. The biblical vision of the future of this world is one of great hope, where "all the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the LORD" (Isaiah 11:9).



Sorting out the Jargon

At this point the writer and reader must pause at a somewhat annoying and clumsy juncture, but one which is necessary to dispel confusion as far as possible from this discussion. The position being advocated here could be referred to as many things, although some of the more common labels might be Dominion Theology, Postmillennialism or Reconstructionism.6 A brief outline of millennial views is called for. If we are speaking strictly, a millennial view is a view on what the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 means.

Premillennialism sees the millennium as a future period of 1000 years where Christ reigns with the saints on the earth (in dispensational premillennialism), or in heaven (in what is sometimes called "historic" premillennialism). It is an interim kingdom between the resurrection of the saints, and the final judgement (including the resurrection of the damned). Without getting bogged down in the various premillennial views on the timing of the rapture and tribulation, we can note that the tribulation is a short period of time before the millennium of great evil in the world, the culmination of the general decline of history, where the ominous figure of "Antichrist" rises to political power.7

In amillennialism, the thousand years is frequently said to refer to the church age, the time between Christ's first and second comings.8 Generally however, while an amillennialist would say the millennium is taking place now, it may also be seen as not a period of time. Rather, the fact that Satan is bound for a thousand years is said to refer to the "perfection" of Satan's being bound with respect to those who have a part in the thousand years, he can in no way rob them of their part in the "first resurrection."9 Seen in this way, the "thousand years" could be said to refer to salvation.

In postmillennialism the thousand years refers to "a golden age of spiritual prosperity during... the Church age" immediately prior to Christ's return.10 The millennium is generally regarded as yet in the future, and will entail the "vast majority of human beings" having been won over to Christ.11

While this is a strict definition of postmillennialism in accordance with the historical meaning of the term, the label is also used in a broader sense.
[In postmillennialism] the millennium itself is variously interpreted. Some postmillennialists equate the millennium with the present age, as Christ rules from His heavenly throne and graciously saves men and nations through His church. This is similar to the amillennial view; in fact, it may also be labelled "optimistic amillennialism."12

Thus, many people who hold to an amillennial view of the millennium (i.e. the 1000 years of Revelation 20) are called (by postmillennialists) postmillennialists by virtue of the fact that they hold to an optimistic eschatology. I think that this is improper, and it gives the impression that postmillennialists want to hold the monopoly on optimism by defining any optimistic believer as a postmillennialist. The point that needs to be made is that while a pessimistic eschatology seems to be written into the very definition of premillennialism and an optimistic eschatology is written into the definition of postmillennialism, neither optimism nor pessimism is necessarily associated with amillennialism. Inasmuch as it is a millennial view, I would suggest that the view defended in this paper could be either amillennial or postmillennial.

What is being advocated here, while it is frequently called postmillennialism, is not technically postmillennialism. It is dominion theology, which is linked with a postmillennial eschatology because postmillennialists hold to it, but one need not be postmillennial to do so. However, I will use the term "postmillennial" in the broader sense offered by Demar and Leithard, to include postmillennialists and amillennialists who accept dominion theology as an eschatological vision, largely because this is how the term tends to be used in the literature on this topic. My position could include amillennialists or postmillennialists. The dispute in which I am taking sides is not a millennial dispute, it is a dispute between pessimism and optimism, defeat and dominion. Having dispensed with this initial caveat, I apologise for its ugliness and press on to the issue at hand.

A Heritage of Hope

In the minds of many conservative Christians with an eschatological interest, optimistic eschatology was stripped of its credibility in the post-war 20th century, and robbed of the Gospel message at its centre by liberal movements, becoming the vehicle of the "social Gospel." With respect to the events of World Wars 1 and 2, it has often been asserted that Postmillennialism was simply unsustainable in a world that had witnessed these tragedies. Hal Lindsey captures well the attitude of those who might reason along these lines, stating that "there used to be" a group called "postmillennialists" who were greatly challenged by World War 1 and virtually wiped out by World War 2. Lindsey concludes that "No self-respecting scholar who looks at the world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a 'postmillennialist.'"13 For reasons of generosity to Mr Lindsey we will set aside for now the question of whether or not serious scholars consider Hal Lindsey to be a scholar.

With regard to Lindsey's second claim about "self respecting theologians" (i.e. theologians that Hal Lindsey respects) and how they all think after the world wars of the 20th century, David Chilton offers some historical examples to consider:

Once upon a time, a courtier must have assured a nervous Pharaoh with these words: "No self-respecting scholar who looks at world conditions and the accelerating decline of Hebrew influence agrees with Moses." After all, Egypt was the most powerful nation in the world. What chance did Hebrew slaves have against that mighty empire? Let's take other examples. What did "world conditions" look like on the day before the Flood? What were world conditions like on the day before the first Christmas? What were they like after Christmas, when King Herod was slaughtering babies in Bethlehem? And wasn't "Christian influence" in terrible decline on Good Friday?14

Exemplifying the first reason for rejecting Postmillennialism (i.e. its liberal associations), in 1958 Merrill Tenney referred to postmillennialists as being "likely" to reject any belief in the "personal return of Christ," claiming that they are instead inclined "to equate it with an evolutionary goal or with the acme of social progress."15 it seems that honesty is not important when attacking a view that "everyone knows" to be false. The theological scenery has changed since then, and such tactics are far less liely now to pass by without serious reprimand. In rejecting this kind of optimism, notes Gary Demar, "The reaction of many Christian leaders was to repudiate not only theological liberalism but also postmillennialism and the social dimension of the gospel. This is a mistake and a misreading of history."16 An analogous error might be rejecting premillennialism because we do not accept extreme Pentecostalism (which tends to be largely premillennial). Far from being the product of liberal theology, postmillennialism has a history that prima facie warrants it a good deal of respect among conservative Christians.

It is hotly debated whether the earliest church Fathers were premillennial or not. I am not going to wade through this particular argument here, other than to note that from a very early (although post-biblical) time, there is evidence that there was a diversity of views with respect to the thousand years of Revelation 20. Justin Martyr, for example, while saying that he himself believed that the saints would be gathered together with Christ to inhabit a restored Jerusalem for a thousand years prior to the judgement, was also forthright in saying that "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."17 Berkhof offers a historical caution:
Some of [the early Fathers] dwelt very fondly on these millennial hopes and pictured the enjoyments of the future age in a crassly materialistic manner. This is true especially of Papias and Irenæus. Others such as Barnabas, Hermas, Justin, and Tetullian, while teaching the doctrine, avoided its extravagances. The millennial doctrine also found favour with Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Montanists. But it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagorus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and other important Church Fathers.18

In any case the real issue under examination here is not chiliasm (or lack thereof), but an optimistic eschatology vs a pessimistic one. From the earliest of times we see a clear hope of a victorious eschatology. Barnabas (c. AD 98) declares:

The Scripture says concerning us...: "Multiply and fill the Earth! ... Have dominion over it!" ... We, having been quickened and being kept alive by the faith of the promise and by the Word, shall live, ruling over the Earth.... To govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule.... Christ was the Son of David.... He says [Psalm 110], "The Lord said to my Lord, 'You must keep on sitting at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool!'" And again, this is what Isaiah says: "The Lord said to Christ, 'My Lord Whose right hand I have held so that the nations shall yield obedience before Him!'"19

Similar statements are found in Clement of Rome, who draws on similar parts of Scripture to the same effect.20 Whatever else it might be, the optimism of Postmillennialism is not a recent innovation. There isn't space for a thorough historical survey of this subject, but as a quick summary, there were no clear challenges to an optimistic view of eschatology in the early church fathers, and this view was only reinforced by the "conversion" of Constantine and the Christianisation (for better or worse) of the Roman Empire. With the influence of Augustine, the sporadic Chiliasm of the early church seemed to subside altogether, and this remained more or less the case until the time of the Reformation.

At the time of the Reformation, Luther declared:
In the beginning, the Church was victorious over... the Jews and the might of the Romans. In like manner, she will today and forever be victorious...over the Pope and the power of the Turk.... The Pope is the last blaze in the lamp which will go out, and ere long be extinguished.... But when he is struck with God's Word - then the Pope is turned to a poppy and a frothy flower!21

The reader can detect in Luther's words a similar notion present in most modern dispensationalist writers, the notion that we ourselves are living at the crisis point of eschatology.22 But this aside, it goes as virtually undisputed that the overwhelming majority of Protestant writers from the time of the Reformation until the rise of premillennialism in the 19th/20th century (including Luther) were Postmillennial, that is, they had a strongly optimistic eschatology. Some might point to a number of the Anabaptists as evidence against this claim. However, the strongest pieces of evidence for the premillennial tendencies of the Anabaptists are the outlandish excesses and exceptions to the rule, such as the actions of a small group at Munster:
Jan Matthys gained control of the community, proclaiming that he was Enoch preparing the way for the second coming of Christ by establishing a new code of laws which featured a community of property and other radical reforms. He declared that Munster was the New Jerusalem and called all faithful Christians to gather in the city. Many Anabaptists answered his summons, and most of the original inhabitants of the town were forced to flee or to live in a veritable reign of terror. The situation was so threatening to other areas of Europe that a combined Protestant and Catholic force laid siege to the place and after a difficult struggle captured the town, suppressing the wave of millennial enthusiasm.23

This is not a good basis for assessing the "Anabaptist view" of eschatology as it clearly represents an aberration rather than the norm. Similar comments might be made about the peasants' revolt, said to be grounded in millennial expectation. Such acts of violence are surely at variance with the pacifism that modern admirers of the Anabaptists like to see as an essential tenet of Anabaptism. If this is so, then we cannot fairly regard these strongly chiliast movements as typical of the Anabaptist movement. In any case, even if it could be better established that Anabaptist movements were largely premillennial, it would remain true that the vast majority of Protestant preachers and teachers have not been. Far from being something that we should associate with liberalism or secular humanism, postmillennialism has a history that, on the surface of it, should at least give us pause to seriously consider the case it sets forth from Scripture before we decide to part with such a great cloud of witnesses and join the popular throng of 20th century evangelicalism.24

Biblical Foundations

The Bible is used to support every kind of eschatology in Christendom, yet it clearly cannot (if it is to be even remotely consistent) teach all of them. What follows is a very brief case that the Bible teaches an optimistic eschatology.

The Old Testament messianic prophecies present an undoubtedly positive view of what would happen to the world when the Messiah comes. Isaiah 11 serves as a good example. Here we read that "a shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse," a son of David upon whom the Spirit of God will rest, one who will bring about justice for the needy of the earth, one who will judge the wicked (vv. 1-5). We read that "the nations will rally to Him," he will "raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth" (vv. 10-12). In Micah 4:1 we learn that "In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it." Perhaps the most graphic prophetic depiction of the coming of the kingdom of God appears in Daniel chapter 2. Here, King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream about a statue made up of various different materials. Then a rock, not cut out with human hands, strikes the statue, smashing it into pieces. The rock then begins to grow, until finally it is a mountain that fills the whole earth. Daniel interprets the dream, explaining that the different parts of the statue represent different world kingdoms that would rise on the earth. The rock represented God's kingdom that would overcome these kingdoms:

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy. (vv. 44-46)

God was going to establish a kingdom on earth, and it would become so great that it fills the earth. Commenting on these and other similar prophecies (not individually, but after listing the references), dispensationalist John Walvoord observes that "[t]he fact that Christ will reign over the earth is of course imbedded in practically every prophecy concerning the millennial kingdom."25 The disagreement arises when we ask the question - "Do these prophecies refer to the coming of Christ and His work as revealed in the New Testament, or do they point to a future millennial period that has not yet begun?" While Walvoord and other dispensationalists seek to project the fulfilment of these Messianic prophecies into a future thousand year period, the New Testament evidence indicates that such prophecies have seen their fulfilment in Christ.

Consider the words of Micah, who said that the mountain of the LORD's temple would be lifted up, and the all the peoples would stream to it. Put this alongside the words of Jesus in John 12:32, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." When Jesus said that He would rebuild the temple after it had been destroyed in John 2:19-20, John clarifies for us by telling us in verse 21 that "the temple he had spoken of was his body." Or we might think of Hebrews 12:22, "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God." Paul, in Ephesians 2:19-21 tells his readers that we have become part of the household of God, built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus Himself as the cornerstone, an that this household is "a holy temple in the Lord." The testimony of the New Testament then suggests that Micah 4:1 has indeed been fulfilled. Christ has been lifted up, and the nations are streaming to Him, becoming part of the household of God, a holy temple, the body of Christ. Or consider Daniel's vision of the rock that smashed the worldly kingdoms, growing until it filled the earth. For obvious reasons, this passage does not feature prominently in the literature defending a dispensationalist/pessimistic view of eschatology, because it so plainly seems to anticipate that when this kingdom comes, it will be successful, and grow to dominate the whole world.26 Observing the apparent message of this text, but still wishing to maintain that this kingdom that will have dominion is a future reality, not initiated in the present age, John Walvoord goes so far as to say "[t]he prophetic foreview of Daniel 2 in Nebuchadnezzar's image... ignores the present age" [emphasis added].27 It should be obvious that a comment like this really is attempting to dodge the bullet. If asked for evidence that the kingdom established by Christ will grow until it reigns supreme on earth, the postmillennialist will turn to this passage as a good example of such evidence. When faced with this evidence, Walvoord says that this evidence will not do, since this text skips over the church age, going straight from the coming of Christ to the future millennium, when the kingdom of God will be established over the whole earth. The only basis for assuming that this passage does make such a "skip" is the prior assumption that the kingdom of God will not grow to fill the earth in this age. If we allow this assumption to control our reading of the Scriptures to this extent, then it really matters very little what we see in the Bible, since whatever it says, our assumptions will make it say what we need it to say.

The teaching of Jesus seems to confirm what the Old Testament prophesies about His coming. For example, he gives two parables about the Kingdom of God in Matthew 13:31-33, the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the yeast:

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.
He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

The fairly natural impression we might get from sayings like this is that the kingdom, once planted, would continue to grow, transforming the whole "batch of dough" as it were. Dispensationalist Alva Mclain, however, rejects this reading of these parables. He says instead that "nowhere in Matthew 13 is the establishment of the kingdom placed within the present age."28 In order to avoid the apparent postmillennialism in certain passages of Scripture then, we see that the only option is to actually deny that the establishment of the kingdom has taken place. This can only leave us wondering then what is this "good news of the kingdom" that Jesus spent so much time proclaiming in the first century,29 and the already difficult reference to the Apostles' being given the "keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:19) becomes inconceivably difficult, given that there was as yet no kingdom and therefore no keys to give. In an attempt to get around this difficulty, premillennialists have come up with the concept of two kingdoms of God prior to the final consummation. Firstly, we are told, "God's universal kingdom exists today," in that God is "in charge of the world" as the creator and sustainer of the universe.30 On the other hand, there is another concept of the kingdom of God. Some call this the "mediatorial" kingdom,31 while others simply call it the "millennial" kingdom.32 His is the kingdom that the Old Testament says would be set up when the Messiah comes, and which Christ "will set up at his coming."33 Thus, the kingdom of God in the first sense has always existed, since God has always been "in charge of the world." But in the second sense, premillennialism denies that the kingdom exists yet. This distinction however does not deliver the premillennialist from her troubles, because it still has not accounted for the establishment of the kingdom in the earthly ministry of Christ. In what sense did Jesus proclaim the Good News of the kingdom? What did He mean by "the kingdom of God has come to you" (Mt 12:28) if we accept these two definitions of the kingdom? Using the first definition, it is not the case that in Jesus the kingdom of God had come at all, and given the second definition, it still would not have been true that the kingdom of God had come to people, for it would still lie thousands of years in the future.34

Any complete defence of the view advocated here would obviously need to undertake a much more thoroughgoing treatment of the biblical data, and what has been provided here is cursory in nature. Given limitations of space and time however, I think that I have offered a reasonable prima facie (albeit brief) case that the Old Testament anticipates a time when God's kingdom will be established, and the result will be that all the nations come into it, until it subsumes the world. Further, I have briefly shown that the New Testament teaches that the Kingdom of God has in fact been established in Christ, and that Jesus anticipated its ultimate success in the world, transforming and filling it. This is the essence of "Dominion Theology."

Answering Objections

The first category of objections, one that is easily dealt with, consists of simple falsehoods that are reported about postmillennialism. Firstly, Lindsey for example claimed that postmillennialists believe that the conditions on earth would continue to improve because postmillennialists believe (or "believed," since Lindsey claimed that postmillennialists no longer exist) "in the inherent goodness of man."35 This is seen (understandably), as sympathy with fairly liberal views on sin and grace, not entirely unlike Pelagius' views. But clearly this is not the case with respect to postmillennialists throughout history. It is indefensible to claim that Athanasius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Owen, Charles and Alexander Hodge, Albert Barnes, Robert Dabney, Augustus Strong, B.B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, J. Marcellus Kik, or John Calvin (to name but a few) sided with liberals and/or believed in the inherent goodness of man - who they actually taught to be fallen and totally depraved! Loraine Boettner responds by pointing out that it has been the consistent witness of postmillennial Christian theologians over the centuries that it is only the work of the Holy Spirit, and not human endeavour, that can ultimately change the hearts of men and women.36 This kind of tabloid argumentation on Lindsey's part (and he is not the only culprit) is both dishonest and unkind. Postmillennialists are explicit that they do not believe what Lindsey claims they believe.

Secondly, postmillennialist Greg Bahnsen observes, "it is popularly thought and taught that postmillennialism maintains that there is an unbroken progression toward righteousness in history - that the world is perceptibly getting better and better all the time - until a utopian age is reached."37 Thus, if there is ever any setback in the evident progress of good in the world - any setback at all - then postmillennialism has failed, since consistent, uninterrupted progress has been thwarted. But this is just to take the convenient road of defining a position in such a way that everyone already knows is untenable - postmillennialists included! Those premillennialists who fairly represent those with whom they disagree are quite frank in acknowledging that this is a misrepresentation of postmillennial theology. Erickson (who has a premillennial view) for example explains that the postmillennial view of history quite freely admits that there will be "setbacks within the general trend," yet in themselves such setbacks in no way ultimately pose a problem for an optimistic eschatology.38

Thirdly, Dave Hunt claims that Postmillennialism is humanistic, and downplays the role of Christ in His millennial reign. He puts this objection very forcefully, saying that Postmillennialists "will not allow Jesus Christ to rule over His kingdom on this earth." He notes that he finds this "incredible."39 He might be equally surprised to note that postmillennialists agree that such a view would be incredible. In making the allegation, he does not cite one Postmillennialist who claims that Christ will not rule over His kingdom on earth, and nor could he do so were the request to be made of him. Central to Postmillennialism is the view that Christ does in fact reign over His kingdom on earth, both now and even more so during a future period when the Kingdom of God is the dominant force on the world scene. Why else do they have such confidence in the future of the church on earth? Why do they sincerely believe that through the influence of the body of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit the structures of society can and will be redeemed? Are these non-earthly concerns? Do they not suggest that Christ is king over the earth, and that His divine authority will indeed be exercised over the earth? They may not believe that the kingdom of God is a political entity, but this is no basis for saying that they don't believe the kingdom of God exists in the world today and that Christ reigns over it. Postmillennialists are universal in their claim that Christ reigns now over His kingdom, which is on earth (as well as in heaven).40 Hunt's criticism is begging for a comeback: "Hunt's dispensational view with a pessimistic eschatology denies that Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth right here and now."

It may be that Hunt means that Postmillennialists don't believe that Jesus will reign for a millennium in His kingdom while He is on the earth. If this is what he means then of course he is right, but then his comment is reduced do a complaint that postmillennialists are not premillennialists, and for this he is unlikely to receive an apology.

Fourthly and finally, some might claim that postmillennialism is just unrealistic wishful thinking. How can we believe that things are getting better or will get better? Looking around at the world, we see wars and conflict, along with widespread immorality and corruption in society. Doesn't the very witness of world history silence the postmillennial view? This question might be answered with another: "What if Jesus had never come?" What would the world be like without the influence of Christ through the church on earth? In an intriguing study, D. James Kennedy explores the question What if Jesus had Never Been Born?41 In it, he examines the enormous contributions that the Christian faith has made to the world. Among such contributions he notes Christianity's impact on the value attached to human life, its contribution to civil liberties, to science, to economics, to medicine, to morality, to the arts and so on. One thing is established, and established clearly: The world has been radically transformed for the better by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 1900 years ago there may have been nay-sayers who might have thought that such projections were merely wishful thinking. Similar doubts are expressed today anytime anything bad happens in the world. But history testifies to the fact of the power of God in transforming cultures, so it is not such a strain on credulity to suggest that He will continue to do this more and more. This is even truer if we have the testimony of Scripture assuring us that this is what He will do.

Summary and Conclusion

To sum up what I've presented as succinctly as possible, there is a good case to be made for a very optimistic view of the future of God's dealings with this world. This bright outlook has much going for it by way of historical support in Christian circles, and on the surface of it at least it looks like quite a reasonable case can be made for it from Scripture. While such a positive view of the future is sometimes maligned as humanistic, liberal or unscriptural, it seems that such criticisms usually consist of either a misrepresentation of the postmillennialists themselves, or a misrepresentation of the teaching of scripture. While the size of this work will obviously mean that many lines of argument remain to be pursued further, it has at least been established that hope is a real contender in eschatology. It might not be so bad after all to believe the wildly optimistic claims of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
Then [i.e. at the resurrection of the righteous] the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.



NOTES

1 Prof. J.S. Malan, "Great Falling Away after the Departure of the Church," on the Bibleguide.com website at http://www.bibleguide.com/articles/e.../departure.htm

2 John Nelson Darby in a lecture delivered in Geneva in 1840 on "Progress of Evil on the Earth," The Collected writings of J.N. Darby, Prophetic, vol. 1, 471, cited in Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London, Banner of Truth, 1971), 186.

3 Christianity Today, Feb 1987, 5, cited in Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), 63. It might be noted that it is not merely the case that Walvoord rejects belief in a "utopia," but that he thinks things will get much worse - He believes the world is going to become more evil and depraved. Saying that he doesn't believe in a future utopia may distance him from one extreme, but it does not admit enough: namely, that he is advocating the other extreme.

4 David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler: Dominion Press, 1985), 3.

5 Ibid.

6 "Reconstructionism" carries with it the concept of "Theonomy," that is, the abiding validity of God's moral and civil laws, and their realised application in the world as it improves. This essay will focus on the broader eschatological issues of optimism vs. pessimism, and will not treat the issue of Theonomy here, due to limitations of space.

7 For an excellent presentation of historic premillennialism (i.e. not dispensational premillennialism) see George Eldon Ladd, "Historic Premillennialism," Robert G. Clouse (ed), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977), 17-40.

8 Robert Strimple for example says that Revelation 20 "presents a broad panorama of the Gospel age," in "Amillennialism," Darrell L. Bock (ed.), Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 127.

9 Sam Hamstra, "An Idealist View of Revelation," in Marvin C. Pate (ed.), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 121.

10 Boettner, Loraine, "Postmillennialism," Robert G. Clouse (ed), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977), 117.

11 Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., "Postmillennialism," Darrell L. Bock (ed.), Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 13.

12 Gary Demar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Forth Worth: Dominion Press, 1988), 41.

13 Hal Lindsey (with C. C. Carlson), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 165.

14 David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler: Dominion Press, 1985), 234.

15 Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1958), 154.

16 Demar and Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity, 53.

17 Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, ch. 80.

18 Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), 262.

19 Epistle of Barnabas, chs 6, 12.

20 First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chs 33, 36.

21 Matin Luther, Writngs, cited in Francis Nigel Lee, Always Victorious: The Early Church not Pre- but Post-Millennial (n.p., n.d.), 19.

22 I cannot help but think that I am being a little redundant in referring to "modern" dispensationalism, given that there is no such thing as ancient or "patristic" dispensationalism.

23 R G Clouse, "Millennialism," BELIEVE Religious Information Source, on the internet at http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/millenar.htm, 22nd October 2001.

24 I resist referring to "21st century evangelicalism" because I would not want to assume that premillennial scepticism has a bright future in the 21st century. It may well be that we will look back on the 20th century as the era that the church dabbled in premillennialism on a large scale.

25 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 299. I would hasten to point out that the list of texts that Walvoord refers to make no reference at all to a "millennium." Walvoord uses the term "millennial kingdom" because he seems to (or at least seemed to in 1959) equate the meaning of the promised "kingdom" with the "millennium." But I certainly do agree that it can't be denied that the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah will rule over the earth after He comes (or came, in my view).

26 It is worth noting the parallel between the rock that comes and shatters the earthly kingdoms with Jesus' saying about Himself in Luke 20:18, "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

27 Walvoord, Ibid., 228.

28 Alva J. McLain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1959), 441, cited in Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1988), 225.

29 Mt 4:23; Mt 9:35; Lk 4:43; Lk 8:1 etc.

30 House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 221.

31 Ibid.

32 This is seen in the title of Walvoord's work, The Millennial Kingdom.

33 House and Ice, Dominion Theology, 221. Of course, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe that the coming of Christ coincides with the establishment of His kingdom. However, they would say that this coming of Christ is the one recorded in the Gospels, where the Old Testament prophecies came to fruition.

34 This is to say nothing of the theological headache created by the concept of the "parenthesis" associated with this distinction between the universal kingdom of God and the millennial kingdom (the latter distinguished by dispensationalists as the "kingdom of heaven," rather than the "kingdom of God"). The promise of the millennial kingdom, in classic dispensationalism, was supposed to be inaugurated by Christ the king when He came to fulfil the prophecies. Unfortunately, however, things did not work out as planned, because the Jews rejected their King, so the millennial promise was postponed until next time. In the meantime is a "parenthesis" of time, a departure from plan A due to a spanner being thrown in the works. Lest it seem that I am overstating or misrepresenting the dispensationalist view, they are expressly defended in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 996 (n. 1), 1011 (n. 1), 1226 (n. 3).

35 Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, 164.

36 Loraine Boettner, "Postmillennialism" in Robert G. Clouse (ed.), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977), 138.

37 Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism," Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3:2 (1976-77), 55.

38 Millard Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 64.

39 Dave Hunt's response to Gary Demar in Demar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988), 212-213.

40 For just a few of the many examples see Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics), 173, David Chilton, Paradise Restored, 67-75.

41 (Milton Keynes: Nelson Word, 1994).



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahnsen, Greg L., "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism," Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3:2 (1976-77), 48-105.

Bahnsen, Greg and Gentry, Kenneth, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics).

Berkhof, Louis, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969).

Boettner, Loraine, "Postmillennialism," Robert G. Clouse (ed), The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977), 117-141.

Chilton, David, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Tyler: Dominion Press, 1985).

DeMar, Gary and Leithart, Peter, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt (Forth Worth: Dominion Press, 1988).

DeMar, Gary, The Debate over Christian Reconstruction (Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988).

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr., "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (eds), Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 195-224.

__________ "Postmillennialism," Darrell L. Bock (ed.), Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 13-57.

Hamstra, Sam, Jr., "An Idealist View of Revelation," Marvin C. Pate (ed.), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 93-131.

House, Wayne and Ice, Thomas, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1988).

Kennedy, D. James and Newcombe, Jerry, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Milton Keynes: Nelson Word, 1994).

Lindsey, Hal and Carlson, C. C., The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).

Murray, Iain, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London, Banner of Truth, 1971).

North, Gary, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993).

---

Notice - The featuring of a particula article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.